With the release of White noises Additive synth, There are finally some good contenders in the additive synth department along with Camel Audio and The Cube. I was curious which one has the most features. Maybe this group could help me decied. I'm lost, they all sound good. Thanks in advanced.

http://virsyn.com/en/E_Products/E_CUBE/e_cube.html

http://www.whitenoiseaudio.com/additive/

http://www.camelaudio.com/index.htm

Thomas

Adder
from concretefx

Both posted the same time – I was wondering why the server had stalled again

yeah, me too!

The last one seems weak. Only 32 partials. Besides I more curious to peoples opinions of the synths already mentioned. Thanks. I didn't know about Vertigo. Seems like a good contender.

lsd wrote:

The last one seems weak. Only 32 partials. Besides I more curious to peoples opinions of the synths already mentioned. Thanks. I didn't know about Vertigo. Seems like a good contender.

I did a review of the Camel one which sums up how I feel about it very well. If you find that useful give it a vote please

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

just soooooo bitter Spe3d

opinions , like mileage , may vary ...
best you download the demos , and make up your own mind ...

I'm not looking at opinions of sound, more or less. I'm curious at techincal perspectives. Thanks

There are a lot of things you don’t know Cypher and that kind of comment does not help though I know you mean it only in jest.

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

re: technical perspectives ...

all the more reason to try the demos ...
see what works well on your set-up ...
as with all additives , CPU usage remains
a concern ...

btw ... with adder , despite the 32 partials , some rather amazing results
can be achieved ...
also , quite affordable ...

me ... i do vertigo ...

I've demo-ed Vertigo, Cameleon and Cube before deciding on Cameleon.

The thing that's nice about Cameleon and Vertigo is Resynthesis : extracting the frequencies of a waveform and using these as the basis of additive synthesis.

Verigo's resynthesis is very nice, but at the expence of a high cpu-load. Cameleon is more picky about the sounds you resynthesize but I liked the GUI very much, very easy to use for such a complex synth, and it's easier on the cpu than Vertigo.

You really need to take some time to explore these synths, they can go very deep into the heart of a sound!

Just my opinion,

Peter.

lsd wrote:

The last one seems weak. Only 32 partials. Besides I more curious to peoples opinions of the synths already mentioned. Thanks. I didn't know about Vertigo. Seems like a good contender.

Adder allows partials to be saw, triangle, square and sample-based waves - not just sine waves.

If I remember right (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm not ), the "sliders" can cover multiple harmonics at once, and cover substantially more range than 32 partials in this fashion - it's more like "32 groups of partials".

I like the CFX synths, and I tried hard to get my head around this one during beta test period, and I just couldn't. It's very deep, but it was just going a different direction than I was at the time... and I start back to keyboard classes next week so my VA time will be somewhat limited for a while.

Doug

WhiteNoise is great, its the best of the bunch for me, and i have tried them all.

I have the Cube but was conisdering Camel audio. But for the price the White Noise additive seems pretty close to camel's for a fraction of the price. Is there anything I would be missing.

Thomas

p.s. why does "cyperone" keep posting stupid comments and smiles? Quit wasting space, please!

I like WhiteNoise too – in fact I done a website for the images that WhiteNoise can use here : http://www.dspevo.net/English/frames.html

You will also find Camel images there too – maybe soon there will be more synths that offer this as an alternative form of sound input.

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

Vertigo2 does ...

Yeah it is a close race between the two that can do the bit map thing. I haven't been able to do this on my pc. I have Metasynth for the mac and it is great, except it is more of a stand alone editor that can do some awsome synth sounds from picture files. Does camel offer more in features that the White noise as far as programming goes? I noticed white noies offers 128 partials as apposed to camel's 64.

normal wrote:

Vertigo2 does ...

Cool stuff Normal – have you got any specifications on the image type and size yet?

I will be very happy to host and make images for it

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

awaiting documents upon final release ...

i've used some of the images from your site ...
they work ...

White Noise Additive actually has 256 partials total if you count both oscs.

-Dave
WNAS

normal wrote:

awaiting documents upon final release ... i've used some of the images from your site ... they work ...

Which ones the colour or the greyscale?

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

WhiteNoise wrote:

White Noise Additive actually has 256 partials total if you count both oscs. -Dave WNAS

Ah! Yep! Dave, That kind of answers the question about Vertigo to – my guess is it take images up to 256 pixels though I don’t know by what.

The duel osc is only part of WhiteNoise though – you can also load images into the filter sections too.

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

actually ...
they both seem to work ...

more investigation required ...

normal wrote:

actually ... they both seem to work ... more investigation required ...

Thank you, Normal

Great info indeed, I think I can put the bits together now – it will be fun to see what the outcome will actually turn out though it sounds quite advanced.

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

Just an info : Cube will be upgraded soon.
I was told one month + ago, no details how ... and I didn't ask ...

" by year's end " so unless Harry was optimistic, met some problems, went way beyond plans, it should be soon ...

I have to thoroughly test the additive gang, CA5000 hasn't gained his baseball bat so far, I must dig further I guess

But now I'am like a pig who ate to much : " an another plate, sir ? " " no, thanks ... later, much digest ! "

A really nice feeling though.

Hi,

I've created a comparison chart, to compare Cameleon, Cube, Vertigo and WhiteNoise additive. Obviously, as the main creator of Cameleon, I am biased, however, I have tried to stick to the facts (for example, the fact that Vertigo is able to resynthesise loops better is noted). Overall, I think that Cameleon does stack up well in terms of features.

http://www.camelaudio.com/additive_comparison.htm
Also, see below the table for descriptions of each feature.

If someone would like to do the CPU comparison, I would be very greatful. Obviously it is open to debate however, as it depends on the preset chosen - perhaps we should pick the most CPU heavy preset from each demo or something. Previously Cameleon has been praised for its CPU efficiency, so I think it should do well here.

If you think there are any errors in the table, or you think it could be improved, please let me know. Either here, or via email at ben<at>camelaudio<dot>com. Obviously there is bound to be some subjectivity about which features are selected to be displayed, however, the prime reason I created this, was because a number of people have been unsure about how the products differ, and why various features are useful to them.

Finally, I would encourage everyone to listen to the MP3 demos provided for each synth, as this does give some indication of the range of the full product. At the end of the day, you would do well to download the demos and try them for yourself, and make a judgement based on that.

Thanks
Ben

Very helpful, Thanks!! You should probably add number of oscilators and partials to the chart. As far as Cameleon 5000 and the abilitly to import images. Are they limited to black and white? Does this effect the sound differently then color? Is this feature in the demo? Thanks

Hey Ben,

While I think the comparison chart is a good idea, I don't really think it's a fair comparison as you pick features that Chameleon has that other synths don't but ignore features that other synths have but Chameleon doesn't, making Chameleon look like it out-features all the others. Plus your wording precludes a fair comparison on some categories. For example, Noise/Harmonics/Separation is specific to your implementation of noise. Both Cube and Additive synth can do noise but in a different way. A more fair way might be "Noise:" "Yes - Separate per harmonic", "Yes - By spectrum", "no", etc.. While it's your site and you certainly can advertise your synth however you want, I wouldn't want people here to think that those were the only features worth comparing on.

-Dave

Hi there

I agree with whitenoise , it might be a bit like comparing oranges and apples. My synth Adder for instance wouldn't look very good if just look at the number of partials but because for instance it can use any wave rather than just sine waves to create sounds , it can do much more than a simple comparision would suggest

Cheers

Jon : ConcreteF

The only war is against my credit card

@ben ...

you'll need to re-examine the feature list for Vertigo , given the upgrades
in the V2 beta ...

you can add a check mark for
morph timeline ...
image import ...
stretch ...

I'm not getting to the White Noise web site. Is it down or something? ('')

Hi,

Quote:

Very helpful, Thanks!! You should probably add number of oscilators and partials to the chart. As far as Cameleon 5000 and the abilitly to import images. Are they limited to black and white? Does this effect the sound differently then color? Is this feature in the demo? Thanks

OK - I will add number of partials. Currently you must use a utlity to convert images to voices. However, within a week there will be a version of Cameleon which will load sounds directly. Currently images must be gray scale, but I will make it support colour too. Both will essentially result in the same result - ie. the lighter the pixel, the louder that harmonics, at that time.

Quote:

Plus your wording precludes a fair comparison on some categories. For example, noise/Harmonics/Separation is specific to your implementation of noise. Both Cube and Additive synth can do noise but in a different way. A more fair way might be "Noise:" "Yes - Separate per harmonic", "Yes - By spectrum", "no", etc..

I agree that it is somewhat arbitrary what features are included in any comparison. I think you have made a great synth and all of the synths are good in their own right, and have different strengths and weaknesses. On the specific point of talking about noise generators, there is a line in the table which says 'Noise Generator', and there is indeed a 'x' beside your synth.

Quote:

I agree with whitenoise , it might be a bit like comparing oranges and apples. My synth Adder for instance wouldn't look very good if just look at the number of partials but because for instance it can use any wave rather than just sine waves to create sounds , it can do much more than a simple comparision would suggest

Your synth does sound interesting. I agree that no comparison can tell the whole story, and that people should try the demoes for themselves. What drove me to create this, was that people seemed to be a little confused about what some features did, and how they compared between synths. In addition, people seemed to assume that all additive synths were alike, and therefore only discriminate based on price. I wanted to highlight that there is more to it than that.

Thanks
Ben

I have used and abused Cube, Cameleon, Vertigo and White Noize and they are all different beasts as far as I am concerned - they are good at doing different things. Most people own more than 1 subtractive synth so why not more than one additive synth - if you only want one then try the demos and make a choice on what is best for you.

as for cpu % comparison, wouldn't it be best to resynth the same .wav in all of the synths, set the partials to the same baseline number (64 since Camel only uses that many I think) and tweak the parameters to close to the same? Seems more fair than choosing arbitrary presets.

flametop wrote:

The only war is against my credit card

agreed.

calling it a war makes it sound like there should only be one winner. but imho, they all sound different and they are all extremely cool. therefore they are all equally worth buying.

question:
if your funds are tight, which addtive vsti's should you buy?

A. which ever make you feel the most creative.

B. as many as you can!

C. all the above

the correct answer is C

-ugo
(a fan of additive synthesis ever since the kawai K5000 was still in production.)

I'd would prefer they would go their own way, their own sounds and definitely not meet on a fighting ground to see who has the fatest bag of partials or so ...

Then to each people to see if it fits its bills ...

That list is not only biased as Dave (Whitenoise) stated, it's also outdated:

Grab latest version at:

http://www.discodsp.com/public/vertigo/

Vertigo allows both morph timeline (envelope) and also timestretching envelopes per example.

It also features:

* Spectrogram editor (user can draw independent partial frequency and amplitude curve along time). (no in CA5000 afaik)
* Built-in BMP import allowing any-size, any bit-depth and "bilinearly" interpolating for scaling. (NO in CA5000 afaik, and not using external tool, afaik)
* Independent partial panning (No in ca5000 afaik, yes in Cube per example)
* 256 partials (64 in ca5000 afaik)

I dont want to sound rush, but Ben: less biased featureset next time please.
Cube per example allows a zillion of things wich CA5000 just doesnt, same goes for Whitenoise additive synth (ie: WN's timeframed formant filter)

Tired Arguru, time to sleep, end of holydays and back to work tomorrow =).

well I am the real winner here because I bought Vertigo v1.0 when it was $79 and DiscoDSP gives free updates for life

If they were all $79 I'd be an even bigger winner though hehehe.....

How about a $79 crossgrade Ben

I remember reading years ago in Keyboard magazine that Wendy Carlos was going the way of additive because it is possible to make any sound imaginable. After hearing this I was intriged for years and recent finally got Cube.

Here are my observations of additive so far:

1. I am not Wendy Carlos (I am not Walter Carlos either)

2. I will not live long enough to master additive synthesis (I am 39).

3. I am thankful for for the slot machine option. (It's a sort of monkeys/typewriters/Shakespeare sort of thing, someday I will randomly create a really cool patch)

arguru wrote:

I dont want to sound rush, but Ben: less biased featureset next time please. Cube per example allows a zillion of things wich CA5000 just doesnt, same goes for Whitenoise additive synth (ie: WN's timeframed formant filter)

Oh, come one. As if he's going to be as familiar with other developers' synths as his own. Besides, he DID ask for people (which includes you) to make suggestions:

Ben [Camel Audio] wrote:

If you think there are any errors in the table, or you think it could be improved, please let me know. Either here, or via email at ben<at>camelaudio<dot>com. Obviously there is bound to be some subjectivity about which features are selected to be displayed, however, the prime reason I created this, was because a number of people have been unsure about how the products differ, and why various features are useful to them.

But really, the best quote so far is:

ugo wrote:

calling it a war makes it sound like there should only be one winner. but imho, they all sound different and they are all extremely cool. therefore they are all equally worth buying.

I own Cameleon and have been tempted by the others. I tried and liked all the others, too. They all have something to offer. My main problem is my lack of familiarity with synths in general and additive synthesis is particular. I'm fairly lost. Cameleon appealed to me because it has so many great presets and I am already familiar with how good Ben's programming is.

I think the table is pretty good and just goes to show each synth has its own strength – combing the lot into one synth would be great – however where is the image input option on the table?

I agree the title of the thread is one designed to create interest and views – though it becomes very apparent there is in fact no war to be had and if I had the option I would use them all but I do have my favoured synth based on how I work in music and that is Cameleon (for morphing this is king imo)– the WhiteNoise one at the moment is great for the image intake and the approach of the whole synth is very unique I think – it can take some getting used to and experiments are fun with the images - quite powerful

Well there you have Vertigo taking in Loops of no real limit it seems - plus high re-synth quality but not too useable at the top settings (cpu wise) - best to bring it down to the lower levels.

What you all need to do - as Normal suggested - is try the demos for each instrument and see how you feel working with them – try them and explore their capabilities first hand – spend a little bit of time learning the jargon that goes with these instruments and try and 'find' the features on the synth and see how 'easy' it is to implement them – it wont take you too long to find the best for - creating music – if that is what you are into.

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

Spe3D wrote:

you find that useful give it a vote please

But if you don't find it useful dare you vote 'no' as spe3d will hunt you down like a dog

...only kidding spe3d (why did I feel it necessary to say that)

Oh careful PA, I got gunned down yesterday for that (not by Spe3d BTW), well, that and my overuse of smilies.......

Careful PA seems like good advice to me

http://www.kvr-vst.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32989

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

CypherOne wrote:

not by Spe3d BTW

Makes a nice change

Hehe, dunno if it helps, but Zebra lets you manipulate 127 partials and has a mechanism to intelligently (more or less) generate the lacking 896 partials that are also in the standard waveforms (1024 partials in total)... But of course, Additive Synthesis in Zebra is just an add-on, not its basic purpose

Cheers,

Urs

Whilst the discussion about features is an interesting and valid one, I think one of the biggest factors in choosing an additive synth (or any synth for that matter) is its ease-of-use.

Additive synthesis is not the easiest beast to understand, and as a result I think alot of new users will simply choose the product that makes the most sense to them in the least amount of time.

Personally, I tried Chameleon, Cube and Additive (downloading Vertigo now & will try Adder when I get some more time), and I found Additive to be the most understandable of the three. It seems like the perfect starter plugin for anyone wishing to explore additive synthesis. This is no slur on its sound quality. On the contrary, I was up and making complex & beautiful patches within half an hour, which is somthing that definately didn't happen with the other two.

Perhaps when I have learned more, and become comfortable with this synthesis method, I will go back and try the others again. Maybe they'll make more sense then.

You can have too many features sometimes!

</my 2 cents>

Urs wrote:

Hehe, dunno if it helps...

It would help if there was a windows version

<wow, never thought I'd say that about anything>

ageis wrote:

Urs wrote: Hehe, dunno if it helps... It would help if there was a windows version <wow, never thought I'd say that about anything>

i believe there is definitely a windowz version coming...URS, can you confirm??

Another thing thing to consider is the size of the resynthesized files. In Vertigo (Demo 1.5) I noticed these where 3 Mb per file! I don't know if this has changed in the last version?

In Cameleon a resynthesized file is 50 - 150 Kb.

If you want to download a commercial or free soundbank with, say 64 patches, this will be 3 - 10 Mb for Cameleon and 192 Mb for Vertigo. I think this is also why Cameleon has the most presets : download size!

I don't know what the (resynthsized) filesize is for the other additive synths?

Peter.

If Urs creates a windows version of Zebra, I will most likely buy it, unless it's priced just too high for me. I have registered my MFM and I'm a real believer in the power of U-He, I just wish they were more Windows-friendly

That’s a very good point pschelf – patch and bank sizes do play a significant part for people to be able to obtain new sounds (particularly if you are on dial up)

Hey! Laser I use and love MFM too – true feedback addict and looking forward to more of Urs stuff to be ported to windows.

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

Spe3D wrote:

Careful PA seems like good advice to me http://www.kvr-vst.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32989 Best regards, Spe3d :O)

What did you mean by that? What have I got to be careful about? If you read that thread you have given you'd actually see that I agreed with you....although I am not even sure why you quoted it

And if you read above you'd see I was joking. I even pointed out that it was a joke because I suspected you wouldn't see it that way.

Oh well, I guess it was lost on you

PatchArena wrote:

Spe3D wrote: Careful PA seems like good advice to me http://www.kvr-vst.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32989 Best regards, Spe3d :O) What did you mean by that? What have I got to be careful about? If you read that thread you have given you'd actually see that I agreed with you....although I am not even sure why you quoted it And if you read above you'd see I was joking. I even pointed out that it was a joke because I suspected you wouldn't see it that way. Oh well, I guess it was lost on you

PA – you have slandered me – banned me from your site – stopped me communication with you by any means – put down in the strongest terms my Controversy site to the point where the only viable option left for me was to close it to protect my other site. You have contributed in the putting down of my name and try to undermine my contributions - Yet you still think you can contribute any worthwhile discussion with me? And now you are putting your hand to a bit of humour?.

Well needless to say I am at this point in time not too pleased with you. I can spell it out but I think it’s a waste of time and effort

And as I said some time ago now – I cannot be bothered with you any longer – get the hint.

Have fun,

Spe3d

:O)

CypherOne wrote:

I got gunned down yesterday for that (not by Spe3d BTW), well, that and my overuse of smilies.......

Peter.

As far as I can see, White Noise Additive potentially has the greatest control of partials over time, If there was more control over drawing in the spectral oscillator screen (or alternativelly an independant plug in to create RAW files) then essentially each partial could have its own envelope, or even delay line, or one could even create the equivalent of an LFO on each partial - flipante!

If there was also an independant program to convert wav to raw then it would propably put White Noise to the top of my buy list for an additive synth.

Hi,

Quote:

As far as I can see, White Noise Additive potentially has the greatest control of partials over time, If there was more control over drawing in the spectral oscillator screen (or alternativelly an independant plug in to create RAW files) then essentially each partial could have its own envelope, or even delay line, or one could even create the equivalent of an LFO on each partial - flipante!

Actually Cameleon and Vertigo have more control over partials than White Noise Additive or Cube. Cameleon has a 128 breakpoint envelope for each partial amplitude envelope, and also a 128 breakpoint envelope for the pitch of each partial. (Its listed as 'freely detunable partials' in the table I made). White Noise Additive does not have any control over the pitch of each partial. The reason why pitch envelopes are useful, is that you cannot resynthesise acoustic instruments well without this, and in general it allows an additive synth to create a wider variety of sounds. (If you wish to hear the difference, try a piano preset (for example) in Cameleon, and see what the effect of turning harmonize on is. Harmonize on is equivalent to having no pitch envelopes).

However, as I and many others have said before, the best way to decide which synth to buy is to try the demo and listen to the MP3s and then make a decision on that basis. In addition, there is no reason why you should not buy more than one. Many of you will have several subtractive synths - they all have different strengths and weaknesses. BTW. Arguru - thanks for pointing those features out. I will update the table when Vertigo 2 is released.

Thanks
Ben

I think that it's amazing that so many developers are making such cutting edge instruments that we are having trouble keeping track of all these features!

Camel, Disco, Big Tick, VirSyn, White Noise, ConcerteFX, you guys all kick ass in my books (and that's just in this Additive thread - there's no shortage of quality instrument coding going on in subtractive and other areas either...). Thanks for your efforts to bring so many powerful choices to the consumer - the real winner in all of this.

Cheers,

LG

Yes, Ben's right - there is no detune or phase control on the partials which is why it's not very good at making realistic resynthesized sounds. White Noise Additive is stronger at making new kinds of synthesized sounds rather than realistic sounds, so it really depends more on what kind of sounds you are after. However, you can load .wav files in Additive, which is how the vocoded style sounds were created.

I'm looking for the most bizzare abstract evolving pad type sounds as well as harsh scraping horror effects. I am working on a series of halloween cd's. Which additive plug would be best for me? I like the sounds of the White noise plug. Any thoughts

lsd wrote:

I'm looking for the most bizzare abstract evolving pad type sounds as well as harsh scraping horror effects. I am working on a series of halloween cd's. Which additive plug would be best for me? I like the sounds of the White noise plug. Any thoughts

Perfect

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

I think you'll find that White Noise Additive has a lot to offer in the Pad department. Check out the "Hivemind" preset on the web page (http://www.whitenoiseaudio.com/additive) which is one of the better "horrible" sounds

Hi,

Quote:

I'm looking for the most bizzare abstract evolving pad type sounds as well as harsh scraping horror effects. I am working on a series of halloween cd's. Which additive plug would be best for me? I like the sounds of the White noise plug. Any thoughts

There are a lot of odd sound ambiences and disturbing sounds in the FX section of Cameleon. If you haven't already had a look, its worth taking a look at the demo - although the demo only contain around 50 presets, rather than the 500 or so in the full version. I'll try to put some more FX in the updated demo coming within the next week.

Also, I haven't put these up before, because I didn't think they'd appeal to as wide a cross section of people - though they are great tunes (check out http://www.camelaudio.com/productsCA5000.htm for the main demos). But since you asked for eerie and harsher stuff, you might want to check these out, that I just put up for you:
http://www.camelaudio.com/sounds/special/GroundZero-by-Vurt.mp3
http://www.camelaudio.com/sounds/special/CameleonDays-by-Biomechanoid. mp3
http://www.camelaudio.com/sounds/special/Caustik_Camel-by-Biomechanoid .mp3
http://www.camelaudio.com/sounds/special/Camel_Acid-by-Biomechanoid.mp 3

These are all made with Cameleon, except I think some of the tunes might use some sampled drums.

Ben

To up the ante in this lovely competition between our developers in this thread:

I'm no programmer, but I can make some REALLY bizzare abstract type sounds as well as harsh scraping horror noises, especially after the copious consumption of certain food substances! Now, granted, my partial is not big, but it offers a pretty decent time envelope, and under the right circumstances it morphs within a few seconds. It only comes with two presets, but the second (extended) version resynthesizes a flute perfectly...

The instrument is not for sale (unless you're a lady between the ages of 18 and 38.), but I'll gladly offer a compilation CD for $19.95 + $99.95 shipping and handling...

Damn, Dingo...LOL! It's a good thing I wasn't drinking coffee or it would have been extruded up my nose and onto my office desk. Seems to me that there might be some other sound practitioners who could offer competition. Hmmmm...maybe the subject of another additive "war" thread!!

lsd wrote:

I'm looking for the most bizzare abstract evolving pad type sounds as well as harsh scraping horror effects.

I still think you should get them all. I've been making all sorts of evil by 'adding the additives' in energyXT.

The only difference between Additive and Addictive is one tiny little letter 'c'.

In FL Studio I create a layers of instruments like Z3ta+ - then render to wave a pattern of about 16 bars at 43 bpm – then I bring this wave into Cronox –

The additive synths has helped save me some of this when creating different types of sound – though I still mess around with the rendered waves when creating special fx– food for thought – amazing what can be done with tempo.

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

In recap can someone recall my additive options (maybe include links as well). There were some odd ones mentioned I never heard of. Thanks

ttoz wrote:

i believe there is definitely a windowz version coming...URS, can you confirm??

Laserguided wrote:

I just wish they were more Windows-friendly

Yeah, hmm, I'd love to say "buy a Mac" but that wouldn't really be helpful

Well, "they" are only "he", and that is the whole problem. I won't get out *complex* software on a platform I don't know a shit about, hence can't support 100%. Maybe "I" becomes "we" in a not too distant future, then things will look different

Stay tuned! I have something more addictive in mind with that zoo stuff...

Cheers,

Urs

Hey Urs, no worries, I was only teasing... I actually think it's cool that you and guys like Tom Erbe develop with mainly Apple in mind, as so few audio tools exist on Apple vs. PC. Look at all the options us PC people have It's nuts!

Anyway, IMO you should keep doing what you're doing. The VST Source Archive is a priceless thing to the whole community, your plugins are very nice indeed (Zebra is one of the rare things I'm jealous of apple people for) and the insanely crazy price that I got the insanely crazy MFM from you for makes me your fan for good As long as the odd U-He plugin trickles over to the windows platform once in a while (zebra zebra) anyway...

Cheers...

Ben [Camel Audio] wrote:

Hi, I've created a comparison chart, to compare Cameleon, Cube, Vertigo and WhiteNoise additive. Ben

There's another column missing:

Most effective advertising on KvR
[x]____________[-]____________[--]...
Camelaudio_____Competitor1____Co...

DocT wrote:

Ben [Camel Audio] wrote: Hi, I've created a comparison chart, to compare Cameleon, Cube, Vertigo and WhiteNoise additive. Ben There's another column missing: Most effective advertising on KvR [x]____________[-]____________[--]... Camelaudio_____Competitor1____Co...

It is one of the best marketing campaigns of just about any vsti product released to date – and in this instance also for a product worthy of the attention.



Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

Spe3D wrote:

DocT wrote: Ben [Camel Audio] wrote: Hi, I've created a comparison chart, to compare Cameleon, Cube, Vertigo and WhiteNoise additive. Ben There's another column missing: Most effective advertising on KvR [x]____________[-]____________[--]... Camelaudio_____Competitor1____Co... It is one of the best marketing campaigns of just about any vsti product released to date – and in this instance also for a product worthy of the attention. Best regards, Spe3d :O)

maybe he's referring to adder

Hi! Bluedad,

I am referring to the marketing campaign set up by Camel Audio – it’s the way the marketing has been presented here at K-v-R that I thought was pretty cool – it’s the first time ever that I have seen the menu used to promote a completion to win a product – plus the moving flash banners are well done – if I think of the name the instrument has got plus the job its designed to do - the banners here represent that very well.

Combined with a well laid out website that loads fast – plus an enthusiastic hands on approach towards questions about his product – that and forever trying to improve on what he has already achieved – impressed me.

Personally I feel that the product is also very good and warrants the promotion – I certainly would not be excited about it if I did not feel that way.

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

Quote:

I am referring to the marketing campaign set up by Camel Audio – it’s the way the marketing has been presented here at K-v-R that I thought was pretty cool – it’s the first time ever that I have seen the menu used to promote a completion to win a product – plus the moving flash banners are well done – if I think of the name the instrument has got plus the job its designed to do - the banners here represent that very well.

I see. Yes, it has been promoted very well. Also, I don't blame you on your enthusiasm; as I dug into Cameleon to try and come up with some presets I was pretty impressed as well.

..but still, adder hasn't been put on the chart!
(lost my train of thought for a moment..)

Hi there

I'd prefer Adder not to be in the chart. As a traditional additive synth it would look a bit under powered, but in fact Adder can do much more with these limited number of partials . Adder can be though as a 32 osc wavetable synth

Cheers

Jon : ConcreteFX

bluedad wrote:

..but still, adder hasn't been put on the chart! (lost my train of thought for a moment..)

Ah! Yep! Sorry I see your point there Bluedad – that does need to be addressed as it’s not fair to Jon, if Adder is not even on the chart.

It’s a big risk for a company to set up comparison charts – the products are forever being updated and new ones will always come out – though with careful attention to detail and responsive action from users input this table should be of benefit to many.

I think when Ben of Camel reads what you have put he will add Adder to the chart.

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

Concretefx wrote:

Hi there I'd prefer Adder not to be in the chart. As a traditional additive synth it would look a bit under powered, but in fact Adder can do much more with these limited number of partials . Adder can be though as a 32 osc wavetable synth Cheers Jon : ConcreteFX

I took to long writing Jon, still the price of your product puts you in a strong position for the chart – not everyone can afford high priced stuff – food for thought.

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

Using Cameleon5000 here. I have not checked out Adder yet thought I own three other synths by ConcreteFX. I notice no one has posted a review on Adder.

Robert

I just spent a couple of days trying out the Adder demo and in a moment of blinding, impulsive flush immediately forgot all budgetary vows and bought it. It's a great synth and -as with the other additives - incredibly addictive. Sounds great and its wonderful to be able to shape sounds while playing havoc with the partials, etc. Still getting under the very l-a-r-g-e hood of the program. When I get more comfortable with its features, I'll try to post a review.

I am a firm believer in the "soul" of the machine and -although I don't know my ass from my elbow regarding additive sound building- really feel that Camel, WhiteNoise Additive and Adder all have something different to offer by way of approach, feel and sound. In fact, I think I'm personally supporting the additive synth industry and have set my eyes toward Vertigo which also seems incredibly sweet but -at first glance in the wee hours - seemed quite a bit more CPU intensive than the others. (oh why oh why did the Deities of Budget lead me to this site and then strip my dignity with Share-It? A sense of humor perhaps).

One more thing I note...a cursory glance shows that none of the aforsesaid additive synths are represented in the patch bank here...not sure about Patch Arena. Maybe its time for the practitioners and devotees to start showing the subtactives where its at?

mayan wrote:

One more thing I note...a cursory glance shows that none of the aforsesaid additive synths are represented in the patch bank here...not sure about Patch Arena. Maybe its time for the practitioners and devotees to start showing the subtactives where its at?

I am working on it – I have the image side of things worked out here http://www.dspevo.net/English/frames.html

and currently doing re synthesis patches with permission of some very well established original content authors – ok! Extreme difference in sound from the original samples but they will show a personality of their own – each sample provider will be given full display of my gratitude at my sites when the patches are released plus mentioned in the patch distribution. Look out for it when they are announced – it’s going to be a great time for all – I am also working on some RM4 banks too

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

Oh! And if you are an original content provider and wish to contribute some genuine original samples to the project – but have not had an email for me inviting you to this idea – please contact me.

Advertising will be provided in return at both of my sites.

Best regards,

Spe3d

I also think Adder is very cool and unique! I agree that it doesn't belong on that list: it's a different beast that deserves its own category.

- m

Hi there

I'm glad that people are finding Adder fun to use, if anyone want to post a review of it (or any our software) that would be great . Similarly if any one has any patches they would like to share I'd put them on our website

Hopefully in the next couple of weeks, there will be an updated version of Adder .In developing our next synth I'v had quite few new ideas which I can put into Adder to make it more powerful and easier to use

Cheers

Jon : ConcreteFX

Jon : ConcreteFX

mayan wrote:

One more thing I note...a cursory glance shows that none of the aforsesaid additive synths are represented in the patch bank here...not sure about Patch Arena. Maybe its time for the practitioners and devotees to start showing the subtactives where its at?

All these synths are relatively new, so it might take some time before the first soundbanks pop up.

I'm currently working on an FM soundbank for Cameleon and hope to finish by the end of this month.
Sounds seem to take on a new character in Cameleon and I can say that most sound better than their FM counterparts once they're inside Cameleon !

Peter.

That's great to hear about your endeavors. I look forward to checking 'em out.

It's interesting that you say that...I'm not sure I have the ears or the experience to know myself but I'm interested in whether people can "hear" a difference between additive and subtractive - or whether they are two different ways at achieving the same type end-sound?

Also, I have been wrestling with my gear-lust and budget and agree to some extent with the sentiment that more choices (hundreds of thousands of patches and effects - all mine!!! hahahahahaha) can "dilute" the creative process - OTOH, there is something about each one of the new additives which seem to stimulate different types of creative sound building and correlative music making for me. I don't know whether its the "newness" of the medium or what but each instrument really gets my juices flowing in different ways. And anything that stimulates and fosters the creative process is to be cherished, eh? (My new rationale for explaining the credit card bill to my long suffering spouse.)

Ben, if you're around, I've had another quick look at the Cameleon demo and manual and I can't yet see how to get a seperate envelope set up for each partial. I've read the Breakpoints and Overall Modes section and can see how using breakpoint mode I can set a different set of partials for each breakpoint, but it's not quite the same as setting an envelope for each partial (even though it may effectively be the same, it would be cumbersome to work out each partial set for each breakpoint in terms of representing the sum of groups of individual partial envelopes, I hope you see what I mean!) If there is another way to do it could you just tell me under which heading it comes in the manual. Thanks.

Ben will be out of touch for a while, as he has had a family emergency.

Poorman, Ben can't respond right now due to a tragic accident in his family (see Camel Audio Forum). I'll try to help.

I think Cameleon only lets you change the partials for each breakpoint this way. You can change the partials one by one or group them (fifhts, octaves, bright, dark) if you select 'Harmonics'-mode. This can give nice results if you eg. select the internal saw wave, leave the first breakpoint like it is, change the 'dark'-setting for the second breakpoint, change the 'octave'-setting for the third breakpoint, etc... You can make nice evolving sweeps like this!

Peter.

I’m new here and to VSTi, but I have used additive – I bought a used K-5 in ‘90 and a K-5000 a few years later.

Last night, after reading this thread, I downloaded a few of demos and was impressed.

Vertigo was the easiest for me to use with my Kawai additive background – it made a lot of sense.

I was also very impressed with Adder. There’s a lot going on there. It has how many LFOs? And every thing can be modulated with everything in something like 64 different mod routings. Is it a 32 operator FM synth, a 32 oscillator wave table synth or a an additive that can use sampled waveforms as partials? Whatever, it’s great, and I haven’t even thought of looking at the step sequencer yet.

To answer an earlier question, I think with Chameleon being able to put a different value (both amplitude and pitch) at 256 break points for every partial is pretty much the same as having a 256 segment envelope for each of them. That’s my interpretation anyway. Unfortunately, I wasn’t as successful making the sounds I wanted with Chameleon as I was with Vertigo.

On a similar subject, I’ve been having a blast with microTera. It’s gotten me used to thinking in additive terms again. It's worth the price of a magazine.

I love additive so it looks like I'm starting into VSTi at just the right time.

Quote:

I love additive so it looks like I'm starting into VSTi at just the right time.

hey, it's a great time indeed!

I've been trying the demos as well. How come vertigo doesn't come with any patch examples? (there is one bit map, but no presets). I really like Additive, but it is a little cpu hungry.

Hi lsd,

sounds like you downloaded the beta of version 2. Go get the demo of the release version for some presets.

lsd wrote:

I've been trying the demos as well. How come vertigo doesn't come with any patch examples? (there is one bit map, but no presets). I really like Additive, but it is a little cpu hungry.

Because the "demo" of Vertigo you've downloaded is actually a 2.0 beta and doesn't allow patch loading/saving. Download the real demo of Vertigo 1.5 from their website. That includes 16 presets and will give you a really good idea of the kinds of sounds it's capable of. It's brilliant, in my opinion.

-Tronam

Version 1.5 doesn't allow the bit map feature. I am torn between Vertigo and Additive. Any thoughts?

if you are not in any particular hurry ,
perhaps you should wait a bit ...

as a Vertigo owner , i am of course a bit biased , but the final release of Vertigo2 may be of interest ...

nought wrong with any of the others though ...

i might add that Cfx has a very underrated
piece of soft w/ Adder ... capable of some
serious sound design , and quite affordable ... Jon is reknowned for first-class support ...

re: cpu ...
directly related to number of partials used ...
i'm making some interesting sounds utilizing from 64 to 128 partials that are
quite cpu efficient ...

lsd wrote:

Version 1.5 doesn't allow the bit map feature. I am torn between Vertigo and Additive. Any thoughts?

To be honest, I haven't quite figured out the value of the bitmap feature - it just strikes me as another form of randomizer for setting the partials - not unlike the "slot machine" for MicroTera.

I don't know that I would base my decision on that... but I don't know about your host (or Vertigo's) other randomizing options.

Doug

I am really torn between vertigo and additive. What would make you buy one over the other? I have demo'd them and like them both, but can afford only one.

pschelfh wrote:

Another thing thing to consider is the size of the resynthesized files. In Vertigo (Demo 1.5) I noticed these where 3 Mb per file! I don't know if this has changed in the last version? In Cameleon a resynthesized file is 50 - 150 Kb. If you want to download a commercial or free soundbank with, say 64 patches, this will be 3 - 10 Mb for Cameleon and 192 Mb for Vertigo. I think this is also why Cameleon has the most presets : download size! I don't know what the (resynthsized) filesize is for the other additive synths? Peter.

I think I know why this might be. Have you noticed that every single one of the presets in Vertigo are the exact same size... 1559kb. Every custom patch that I create is even larger at exactly 3113kb in size, which initially led me to believe that it was storing my sample in there somewhere. But, the documentation clearly states that once the sample has been analyzed and the partials model constructed, the PCM data is discarded. So, what is taking up all of that space and how is Cameleon managing to get it's patches down to such a small size? I think it's because Vertigo saves it's patches as raw, uncompressed data, while Cameleon incorporates a built-in compression system for it's patches. Guess how small my 3113kb patches get compressed down to with a simple .ZIP compression program? 155kb. With my Vertigo_Data folder already beyond 100MB at this point with just a few of my own patches, I think DiscoDSP should seriously consider at least a simple .ZIP compression/decompression scheme for it's saved presets in Vertigo 2.0. A 2000% reduction in size is worth it, I think. My VST folder is taking up enough hard drive space as it is.

-Tronam

Tronam wrote:

I think it's because Vertigo saves it's patches as raw, uncompressed data, while Cameleon incorporates a built-in compression system for it's patches.

Having built a tool for the voice-patch format, I can say with certainty that Cameleon does not use any sort of compression.

- m

Markleford wrote:

Tronam wrote: I think it's because Vertigo saves it's patches as raw, uncompressed data, while Cameleon incorporates a built-in compression system for it's patches. Having built a tool for the voice-patch format, I can say with certainty that Cameleon does not use any sort of compression. - m

Well, that was presumptuous on my part then. But, just to be certain that there is no confusion, I was not implying that Cameleon compromises it's sound quality in any way through compression. It was just a hypothesis that possibly a lossless compression algorithm like .ZIP was being used to keep the patches so small. Perhaps Cameleon simply throws away all of the data that it doesn't need, whereas Vertigo holds onto a whole lot more. Either way, I definitely think that Vertigo's method of storage needs some improvement in this respect. A basic data compression scheme would make all of the difference.

-Tronam

Tronam wrote:

Markleford wrote: Tronam wrote: I think it's because Vertigo saves it's patches as raw, uncompressed data, while Cameleon incorporates a built-in compression system for it's patches. Having built a tool for the voice-patch format, I can say with certainty that Cameleon does not use any sort of compression. - m Well, that was presumptuous on my part then. But, just to be certain that there is no confusion, I was not implying that Cameleon compromises it's sound quality in any way through compression. It was just a hypothesis that possibly a lossless compression algorithm like .ZIP was being used to keep the patches so small. Perhaps Cameleon simply throws away all of the data that it doesn't need, whereas Vertigo holds onto a whole lot more. Either way, I definitely think that Vertigo's method of storage needs some improvement in this respect. A basic data compression scheme would make all of the difference. -Tronam

Ummm! I don’t think this is accurate either Tronam – one synth is 64 partials the other is 256 – neither synth is throwing away data – they both utilise the data that is considered important to be saved in the patch while other data may be already in the synth itself.


Best regards,

Spe3D wrote:

Tronam wrote: Markleford wrote: Tronam wrote: I think it's because Vertigo saves it's patches as raw, uncompressed data, while Cameleon incorporates a built-in compression system for it's patches. Having built a tool for the voice-patch format, I can say with certainty that Cameleon does not use any sort of compression. - m Well, that was presumptuous on my part then. But, just to be certain that there is no confusion, I was not implying that Cameleon compromises it's sound quality in any way through compression. It was just a hypothesis that possibly a lossless compression algorithm like .ZIP was being used to keep the patches so small. Perhaps Cameleon simply throws away all of the data that it doesn't need, whereas Vertigo holds onto a whole lot more. Either way, I definitely think that Vertigo's method of storage needs some improvement in this respect. A basic data compression scheme would make all of the difference. -Tronam Ummm! I don’t think this is accurate either Tronam – one synth is 64 partials the other is 256 – neither synth is throwing away data – they both utilise the data that is considered important to be saved in the patch while other data may be already in the synth itself. Best regards,

Hmm... I think this is exactly what I said. I specifically said that it "throws away all of the data that it doesn't need" and that Vertigo holds onto a lot more. Considering that Vertigo stores information for 256 possible partials, instead of 64, is it not accurate to say that it "holds onto a lot more" data? Are you suggesting that after both instruments import a PCM waveform, no data is thrown away? Vertigo's documentation states that it does and I would imagine that Cameleon does as well. Once they build their impression of the sample, there's probably no need to hang onto any of that data any longer. This isn't really the point anyways. What's most relevant I think, is that considering how well the Vertigo patches compress, I'd really like to see something like that in the next version. I can see my VST folder growing exponentially, the more I use it. It's already happening..

-Tronam

hmm sort of a non-answer Tronam (I'd like the see native compression within vertigo patches too....), and a little obvious but...

I keep all my VST patches on a seperate drive, thus maximizing space for my VST plugins (I create and save tons and tons of patches all the time for all my plugins).

All the best,

LG

Tronam wrote:

Spe3D wrote: Tronam wrote: Markleford wrote: Tronam wrote: I think it's because Vertigo saves it's patches as raw, uncompressed data, while Cameleon incorporates a built-in compression system for it's patches. Having built a tool for the voice-patch format, I can say with certainty that Cameleon does not use any sort of compression. - m Well, that was presumptuous on my part then. But, just to be certain that there is no confusion, I was not implying that Cameleon compromises it's sound quality in any way through compression. It was just a hypothesis that possibly a lossless compression algorithm like .ZIP was being used to keep the patches so small. Perhaps Cameleon simply throws away all of the data that it doesn't need, whereas Vertigo holds onto a whole lot more. Either way, I definitely think that Vertigo's method of storage needs some improvement in this respect. A basic data compression scheme would make all of the difference. -Tronam Ummm! I don’t think this is accurate either Tronam – one synth is 64 partials the other is 256 – neither synth is throwing away data – they both utilise the data that is considered important to be saved in the patch while other data may be already in the synth itself. Best regards, Hmm... I think this is exactly what I said. I specifically said that it "throws away all of the data that it doesn't need" and that Vertigo holds onto a lot more. Considering that Vertigo stores information for 256 possible partials, instead of 64, is it not accurate to say that it "holds onto a lot more" data? Are you suggesting that after both instruments import a PCM waveform, no data is thrown away? Vertigo's documentation states that it does and I would imagine that Cameleon does as well. Once they build their impression of the sample, there's probably no need to hang onto any of that data any longer. This isn't really the point anyways. What's most relevant I think, is that considering how well the Vertigo patches compress, I'd really like to see something like that in the next version. I can see my VST folder growing exponentially, the more I use it. It's already happening.. -Tronam

Tronam I am suggesting keeping the info simple like

1 – a patch from a synth with 64 partials is naturally going to be smaller than..
2 – a patch from a synth with 256 partials that will be bigger.

How the syths manage this data is the key to trying the demos and hear for yourself the quality from both combined with playability.

Both Vertigo and Cameleon have strong benefits each – to be honest they are additives but their strengths lay in different areas.

And yep! This is the danger = big vst folders full of synths – no one synth in the additive ranges has yet to cover all of the others features (that I know of)

Best regards,

Spe3d

I already own Vertigo and have been extremely happy with it overall. What initially caught my attention though was the mention of how incredibly small Cameleon's patches were in comparison and I was naturally curious as to the reasons behind this. It may have fewer partials, thus only needing to store 1/4th as much data, but we're talking a 20-30 times difference here. I'm sure something could be done to address that. Either way, if I'm crazy enough to stockpile nearly 20gb of MP3's on my hard drive, surely I can sequester some space for my damned Vertigo patches.

-Tronam

Vertigo is good but it just doesn't sound as good as CUBE. For me the best sounding softsynths (overall even) are CUBE, Absynth and Reaktor... this trio is in a league of their own what sound quality is concerned.

But since this is a discussion about additive synths, my vote will go to CUBE (with Bigtick's Rhino in second place)

Spaceman wrote:

Vertigo is good but it just doesn't sound as good as CUBE. For me the best sounding softsynths (overall even) are CUBE, Absynth and Reaktor... this trio is in a league of their own what sound quality is concerned. But since this is a discussion about additive synths, my vote will go to CUBE (with Bigtick's Rhino in second place)

I haven't actually heard Cube at all yet. But, on your recommendation I'll have to check it out. Thanks.

-Tronam

I have Cube but think it lacks something, sound wise. Maybe it's the presets that don't do it justice, but they seem rather dull. That is why I started this thread. I have tried some of the other options and I really like Additive it has lots of character. The sound jumps out at you and is very "colorful". Vertigo is good as well. I don't have the patience to program from scratch so maybe I need to spend more time with Cube?

Cube kinda sucks in my opinion - all the sounds sound similar and it's difficult to get the kinds of sounds you want. It has some novel ways of doing things like the 4 way morphing thing and the morph paths (which since has been adopted by chameleon), but I found it difficult to get really fat sounds. Everything sounds kinda thin. It's a great synth for ambient stuff, but for anything that requires a more aggressive or thick sound it's too dull.

It probably depends on how you define 'fat sound' WhiteNoise. It's not supposed to be a fat sounding analogue synth (you have to turn to other synths for that) but CUBE is very capable of producing very rich and extremely clear sounds.. but I might agree with you in the way that it does have a very distinct sound that might not appeal to everyone.

I'm into ambient music (style Global Communication, etc.) and I'm looking for clear, organic, evolving (weird) sounds and I don't like 'muddy' sounds that much so CUBE is perfect for me (and for me it's also the perfect companion for Absynth, which gives me the 'fat' sounds you mentioned.)

.. but might I also repeat that Bigtick's Rhino is becoming one of my favs as well. Tremendous quality and possibilities for the price.

I own Cube, Cameleon, and Vertigo. They all have top quality sound. Each one offers sounds that would be impossible or extremely difficult to create with the others.

Cube ($199)
-----------
- Excellent selection of presets. These will not be to everyone's liking but if you are into a different kind of innovative sound, these are great.
- Best rhythmic looping kind of sounds.
- Best GUI. Great fun watching the 2d envelope animation. I love watching the filters morph in real time.
- If they ever added resythesis function, watch out!

Cameleon ($199)
---------------
- Best selection of "Bread and Butter" type presets. Easy to fit these into the mix. You don't get the kind of moving sounds you get with Cube but I know it is possible. Bitmap import feature will make it easier I think to create some interesting looping rhythms.
- The resynthesis is nowhere as good as Vertigo but this is also one of its strengths since you get a very different kind of sound and a very nice sound at that.
- The morphing square works quite well to create interesting hybrid sounds.

Vertigo ($133)
--------------
- Best atmospheric pads of the group.
- Resynthesis function is the best.
- You only get 64 presets and most of these are pads. This synth is capable of much more than the presets would suggest.
- Vertigo 2 is on its way and will add so much more to this synth. I read some where that this would be a free upgrade to current owners. You might want to get it now before they raise the price.

I haven't bought WNA only because it got to the game last. I promise to play with it some more to see if it is easy to create new sounds that I cannot create easily with the others. If so, then I may buy it too. Seriously though, the 5 minute timeout really sucks!!

I would hate to have to pick only one of these. Eventually, they may all grow into similar synths but right now they are very different. Spend a lot of time with the demos. Try to create your own sounds.

I guess you can say I love additive synthesis!! I can't believe the amount of synthesis power we have available these days.

Regards, Phil.

I'll lengthen or remove the timeout.

I'm glad to hear that. It crashes FL Studio for me every time the 5 minutes run out

WhiteNoise wrote:

I'll lengthen or remove the timeout.

Thanks!! I played with it some more this morning and I think the ability to import bitmaps or wav files for both the Spectrum and the Formant is a great feature that allows users to create new sounds very easily by mixing and matching the spectrums.

This synth is definitely capable of easily creating new amazing sounds that would be much more difficult with other synths. I see no reason not to own them all (other than money -- luckily my wife doesn't know).

I will wait for the new demo to play some more because it also crashes my FLStudio when it times out and that is the only host I use.

Given the nice price, I may have to pick this up too and start the year with a full palette of additive sound creating tools. Now if I only had more time.

Phil.

I can't really test the WNA demo either, it crashes most host after the 5 minutes run out.

Ok, thanks for letting me know guys. I'm surprised no one reported this earlier. I'll have this fixed tonight - I suspect it happens when it brings up an about box when the time out occurs. Since the full version doesn't have a timeout, it won't have this bug.

I am buying additive just out of respect for david's dedication. Kudos!!! Keep up the good work.

I do have to admit WhiteNoise... I really like WNA. I think I might just get a copy, am just going to do some more testing.

WhiteNoise wrote:

I'll lengthen or remove the timeout.

I'm glad to hear this, crashes orion..and it's usually just at the point where I'm getting the hang of making a sound I like.

Ok guys, I lengthened the Demo time to 15 minutes and I believe I fixed the crash bug (I tested it in FL Studio 4). Please let me know privately if you have any probs. I was gonna take out the time limit, but I think that might be giving away a little too much. BTW, I also posted 2 more "factory" banks (32 sounds) on the http://www.whitenoiseaudio.com/demodownloads page if you are interested in hearing more what the synth can do. (and yes, I am planning on making banks bigger than 16.. this'll be fixed in the first update).

Thanks again for letting me know about the bug and your thoughts about the demo.

Got my copy of WNA and I have to say.. I'm pretty impressed with the sound, and it suits my style of music perfectly. I think I'm putting it on a shared top spot with Cube for now.

It would be great to have midi-learn though but it's not going to spoil my fun for now

Spe3D wrote:

Tronam wrote: Spe3D wrote: Tronam wrote: Markleford wrote: Tronam wrote: I think it's because Vertigo saves it's patches as raw, uncompressed data, while Cameleon incorporates a built-in compression system for it's patches. Having built a tool for the voice-patch format, I can say with certainty that Cameleon does not use any sort of compression. - m Well, that was presumptuous on my part then. But, just to be certain that there is no confusion, I was not implying that Cameleon compromises it's sound quality in any way through compression. It was just a hypothesis that possibly a lossless compression algorithm like .ZIP was being used to keep the patches so small. Perhaps Cameleon simply throws away all of the data that it doesn't need, whereas Vertigo holds onto a whole lot more. Either way, I definitely think that Vertigo's method of storage needs some improvement in this respect. A basic data compression scheme would make all of the difference. -Tronam Ummm! I don’t think this is accurate either Tronam – one synth is 64 partials the other is 256 – neither synth is throwing away data – they both utilise the data that is considered important to be saved in the patch while other data may be already in the synth itself. Best regards, Hmm... I think this is exactly what I said. I specifically said that it "throws away all of the data that it doesn't need" and that Vertigo holds onto a lot more. Considering that Vertigo stores information for 256 possible partials, instead of 64, is it not accurate to say that it "holds onto a lot more" data? Are you suggesting that after both instruments import a PCM waveform, no data is thrown away? Vertigo's documentation states that it does and I would imagine that Cameleon does as well. Once they build their impression of the sample, there's probably no need to hang onto any of that data any longer. This isn't really the point anyways. What's most relevant I think, is that considering how well the Vertigo patches compress, I'd really like to see something like that in the next version. I can see my VST folder growing exponentially, the more I use it. It's already happening.. -Tronam Tronam I am suggesting keeping the info simple like 1 – a patch from a synth with 64 partials is naturally going to be smaller than.. 2 – a patch from a synth with 256 partials that will be bigger. How the syths manage this data is the key to trying the demos and hear for yourself the quality from both combined with playability. Both Vertigo and Cameleon have strong benefits each – to be honest they are additives but their strengths lay in different areas. And yep! This is the danger = big vst folders full of synths – no one synth in the additive ranges has yet to cover all of the others features (that I know of) Best regards, Spe3d

Hmm, I was more suprised that Cameleons patches were so small compared to Vertigos, especially the resynthesised, as I assumed its normal for resynthesis data to be larger than the original recording. Wonder what hes doing ?

Has anyone done a comparison as to the number of controllable parameters in Vertigo and Cameleon, maybe that may shine some light on the question.

I assume that vertigo doesnt throw any data away and assumes that every patch has 256 partials plus the associated phase, amplitude, noteshift,frequency artio and envelope data for each of those partials, which comprises of 256 break points . Thats a shit load of data.

I would think the first obvious point is that Cameleon only uses 64 partials and am I right in thinking that cameleon only has envelopes for amplitude and frequency of those partials. I dont know how many breakpoints it has in its envelopes but it seems it would add up to less data and therefore a smaller file size.

Plus, Vertigo can use up to 8192 fft frame sizes - dont know how many Cameleon uses but I assume its less as Ive heard its not so good at resynthesising drum loops.

Then again I dont know shit

Personally I couldnt give a monkeys sack as Ive got Gigabytes of storage space plus a CD/DVD writer and a broadband connection, as do alot of people.

.
..
are you sure you've included enough quotes there CreepJoint?
..
.

I'm a Mac user so my comments are limited to Cameleon and Cube:

I wanted to like Cameleon, I really did--I use and love CamelPhat, Camelon has the best GUI I've ever seen, and the multiple randomizers are great.

But . . . the sound leaves something to be desired. I've listened to all of the demo MP3s, I've played around with the demo version, and the analogue sounds especially just sound like a cheap Casio synth. I don't know much about additive synthesis, and I don't know whether this is due to the synthesis engine or the filters or the number of partials or what, but when it comes to making music I trust my ears first and foremost and too many of the sounds coming out of Cameleon are not things I would use in a track except as a one-off sound effect, and not too loudly at that. Cube, on the other hand, sounds rich, full, and phat. And it has a nice arpeggiator.

Price is also an issue, and since I was able to buy Cube with an academic discount, it won in that department as well.

I'd like to buy Camelon someday, but first I'd like to hear a marked improvement in sound quality and an arpeggiator.

CreepJoint wrote:

Spe3D wrote: Tronam wrote: Spe3D wrote: Tronam wrote: Markleford wrote: Tronam wrote: I think it's because Vertigo saves it's patches as raw, uncompressed data, while Cameleon incorporates a built-in compression system for it's patches. Having built a tool for the voice-patch format, I can say with certainty that Cameleon does not use any sort of compression. - m Well, that was presumptuous on my part then. But, just to be certain that there is no confusion, I was not implying that Cameleon compromises it's sound quality in any way through compression. It was just a hypothesis that possibly a lossless compression algorithm like .ZIP was being used to keep the patches so small. Perhaps Cameleon simply throws away all of the data that it doesn't need, whereas Vertigo holds onto a whole lot more. Either way, I definitely think that Vertigo's method of storage needs some improvement in this respect. A basic data compression scheme would make all of the difference. -Tronam Ummm! I don’t think this is accurate either Tronam – one synth is 64 partials the other is 256 – neither synth is throwing away data – they both utilise the data that is considered important to be saved in the patch while other data may be already in the synth itself. Best regards, Hmm... I think this is exactly what I said. I specifically said that it "throws away all of the data that it doesn't need" and that Vertigo holds onto a lot more. Considering that Vertigo stores information for 256 possible partials, instead of 64, is it not accurate to say that it "holds onto a lot more" data? Are you suggesting that after both instruments import a PCM waveform, no data is thrown away? Vertigo's documentation states that it does and I would imagine that Cameleon does as well. Once they build their impression of the sample, there's probably no need to hang onto any of that data any longer. This isn't really the point anyways. What's most relevant I think, is that considering how well the Vertigo patches compress, I'd really like to see something like that in the next version. I can see my VST folder growing exponentially, the more I use it. It's already happening.. -Tronam Tronam I am suggesting keeping the info simple like 1 – a patch from a synth with 64 partials is naturally going to be smaller than.. 2 – a patch from a synth with 256 partials that will be bigger. How the syths manage this data is the key to trying the demos and hear for yourself the quality from both combined with playability. Both Vertigo and Cameleon have strong benefits each – to be honest they are additives but their strengths lay in different areas. And yep! This is the danger = big vst folders full of synths – no one synth in the additive ranges has yet to cover all of the others features (that I know of) Best regards, Spe3d Hmm, I was more suprised that Cameleons patches were so small compared to Vertigos, especially the resynthesised, as I assumed its normal for resynthesis data to be larger than the original recording. Wonder what hes doing ? Has anyone done a comparison as to the number of controllable parameters in Vertigo and Cameleon, maybe that may shine some light on the question. I assume that vertigo doesnt throw any data away and assumes that every patch has 256 partials plus the associated phase, amplitude, noteshift,frequency artio and envelope data for each of those partials, which comprises of 256 break points . Thats a shit load of data. I would think the first obvious point is that Cameleon only uses 64 partials and am I right in thinking that cameleon only has envelopes for amplitude and frequency of those partials. I dont know how many breakpoints it has in its envelopes but it seems it would add up to less data and therefore a smaller file size. Plus, Vertigo can use up to 8192 fft frame sizes - dont know how many Cameleon uses but I assume its less as Ive heard its not so good at resynthesising drum loops. Then again I dont know shit Personally I couldnt give a monkeys sack as Ive got Gigabytes of storage space plus a CD/DVD writer and a broadband connection, as do alot of people.

Some good point’s there CreepJoint, sort of backs up what I was saying – but I just had to do this quote thing. (I have been trying to resist – but finally found a reason to use the quote)

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

Damn, you outdone me Spe3d

hail to the quote masters ..

Although it still needs some work (midi learn, cpu load, etc) I think WNA is really good. The sound has really impressed me so far and it's dead simple to use. I think it should move high up our list.

Thanks Spaceman, I'm glad you like it! I'm planning on adding more midi CC stuff in the first update.

CreepJoint wrote:

Personally I couldnt give a monkeys sack as Ive got Gigabytes of storage space plus a CD/DVD writer and a broadband connection, as do alot of people.

There's an update to the Vertigo 2.0 beta and they've now incorporated zlib compression on import/export of patches. I'm very happy to hear that. It will also mean that the application download won't be quite so massive and they can possibly include more factory patches as well.

-Tronam

CreepJoint wrote:

Hmm, I was more suprised that Cameleons patches were so small compared to Vertigos, especially the resynthesised

Yeah, I was sent some for the site a few days ago and they were extremely large

digidervish wrote:

Cube, on the other hand, sounds rich, full, and phat.

I agree totally! I think Cube is the pioneer here. It has some advanced function that the other synths will have to catch up on.

1) up to eight different presets per instance. Each assignable to different MIDI channel. Routable to eight different stereo outputs.

2) 512 partials. You can change the level, attack/decay, pan, filter, and noise for each sound source. The first 16 partials can easily be changed individually. The rest are grouped in increasing group sizes (2, 4, ...).

3) Visual automation of the movement of the sound. Go to filter edit page and watch the filter morph! Make some changes and listen.

4) Great selection of presets. Many of these show how great Cube can move from one sound source to another.

The feature really missing is some kind of resynthesis to easily create more realistic sounds. Also, it requires SSE capable CPU which eliminates some users.

digidervish wrote:

I'd like to buy Camelon someday, but first I'd like to hear a marked improvement in sound quality and an arpeggiator.

This is most probably due to only 64 partials and most of the presets use 32 or less partials. Still, I really like the sound. It is pretty easy to get a nice loop going: Throw a few notes on the piano roll, add a little portamento, and play with the effects a little. I like to use the notes outside the normal range. Since it uses less CPU than Cube, you could layer a couple to expand the spectrum.

Don't give up on Cameleon yet. I think it is capable of more than we've seen so far. When I first got it, I was a little dissapointed that the presets did not include the kind of rhythmic loops and moving morphs that you get with Cube. However, I got my hopes up when I heard this instrument posted by McLilith:

http://webpages.charter.net/glenweb/c5000/Mc_Camel_Scales.c5i

It shows that C5000 is capable of some rhythmic loops. It only uses one sound source so you can morph with the other three for even more variety. I changed a few partials and had a whole different rhythm going. This kind of sound is hard to create manually but with imported bitmaps it might get easier. There has already been some interesting results with bitmaps. See following thread for more info:

http://www.kvr-vst.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32058&highlight=cameleon

Overall, I think it takes longer to master all of Cameleon's features than it does Cube. There are unique things that I haven't even started to explore like:

- detunable partials
- Multi-Sampling and Velocity layers.
- modulation matrix

I wish the developers would give more information about what the future plans are. It would make it easier for users to choose now. If Virsyn added some nice resynthesis to Cube, it could become a clear winner in my opinion.

Phil.

One thing I have noticed is that the effects are critical to get anything that sounds good out of all the synths. Would anyone care to comment on the effects quality of the various synths. I don't know enough about effects.

Phil.

I'm going to sound like a VirSyn salesman but for me the FXs in Cube are top-notch and probably the best of the bunch. Especially the reverb is excellent but the chorus, delay and overdrive are pretty good as well.

pd wrote:

If Virsyn added some nice resynthesis to Cube...

My wish has come true! Free upgrade to current owners. Thank you Virsyn!!

http://www.virsyn.com

Phil.

The new Cube with resynthesis does indeed sound good. It seems the additive/resynthesis arena has really exploded. Hopefully this drives all parties to really push the envelope (no pun intended) with their respective offerings.

-Tronam

I think Vertigo still sounds better, but maybe Cube will be lower cpu or offer some better modulation options.

pd wrote:

If Virsyn added some nice resynthesis to Cube, it could become a clear winner in my opinion. Phil.

Cube 1.5

My resynthesized, hmm, voice and 2 more Cube sounds based on the legendary Korg M1 bottlebell
German only, sorry

More on http://www.virsyn.de/en/E_Home/E_CUBE_Preview/e_cube_preview.html

Ouch, late as always

Very Cool DocT !!

Phil.

Wow. Cube now does resynthesis - great. What I like about this synth is that it can make some really subtle sounds, though it can be phat if you want that too. It'd be nice to have more control over drawing in filter envelopes and also partials get pretty clustered together on th edit screen. I prefer the way it does morphing to Cameloen. The reverb is excellent. And so is Cameleon's.

I'm interested to read all these opinions on additives...here's a couple of my opinions...

I'm a Cameleon owner and I'm surprised at some of the comments I've read - from comparison to the latest Vertigo demo I have, I reckon from a musical perspective Cameleon is far superior at resynthesis. I found samples resynthesised in vertigo to be pretty unnatural and sort of 'mechanised'-sounding. However in Cameleon I can recreate instruments pretty damn realistically, and it's really easy to get rid of any weirdness that creeps into a particular resynthesised sample.

Vertigo does however make a more realistic job at resynthesising things like drum loops and speech, but I personally have never really found a use for these kind of drum loops you get as presets in softsynths. Yeah they sound cool and you can sit there with your mates going "Cool, yeah", but I wouldn't see myself realistically basing one of my tunes around a loop preset that five hundred other softsynth owners also have...
You can get some interesting speech reynthesis' effects from Vertigo though it has to be said.

Also I reckon the pads in Cameleon are absolutely incredible, I also like the pads in the Vertigo demo too. The Cameleon ones are just have such a unique sound. Cameleon owners/demo owners - I recommend tweaking the presets and creating your own if your unhappy with them, you can create so much with this baby...but then I'm just a happy (ok so I might be biased then ) Cameleon owner...

I think with synths as powerful as Cameleon and these others, it's important not to base too much of your opinion on how good a synth is just on what you think of the presets. When I first got Cameleon I just used the presets coz there were so many and I hadn't learnt to use the synth yet, but when you start actually making your own sounds and really using the power of the synth is when you can really establish how good these things are...

And I agree with the general consensus that they all tackle additive in slightly different approaches and theres a time and place for all of them Just need to get the others now too...

Cheerio

Lurchey

Hey Lurchey, welcome to Kvr =)

Hello,

Lurch, since you seem to be talking about Vertigo Demo, I think you should try Vertigo v2.0 public beta: http://www.discodsp.com/public/vertigo.

Thanks.

One more thing, I have uploaded the source .wav file of the Vibez patch in Vertigo v2.0 beta6 at our wesite, so anyone can resynthesize it in other plugins and make their own conclusions:

http://www.discodsp.com/public/vibez.zip

There are a number of re synthesis settings on Vertigo George, which one would be best to use when re synthesising your sample – as this may help others decide get a better idea of how to use the settings for different types of samples that fit in different frequency ranges – this is where most people make the errors I think.

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

While testing out Vertigo, many may not realize that if you enable the "Nearest Freq Pairing" before importing a sample, it will tend to yield smoother sounding results. So, if you are getting the impression that Vertigo is "harsher" than some of the others, you may want to try that out and possibly experiment with the Windowing as well. Personally, I find it to be very smooth and warm when compared with traditional additive synthesis. This is one of the things that really surprised me when I first experimented with it.

-Tronam

pd wrote:

pd wrote: If Virsyn added some nice resynthesis to Cube... My wish has come true! Free upgrade to current owners. Thank you Virsyn!! http://www.virsyn.com Phil.

FFFuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck

I just wet my pants, I never thought it would happen.

Ok George - I'll download the v2 beta and try out the sample too....

There goes another lovely sunny afternoon hunched over my keyboard then...

To be continued...

Lurch

Spe3D wrote:

which one would be best to use when re synthesising your sample

At the moment, just Import Wave only. Add sugar (FX) according to designer taste.

sorry no comparison with any of them, just play cube for 10 minutes against the others using the presets . cube give me a boner !

And now cube 1.5 has resampling, head over to their page and preview the resampling. For me cube is tops.

B.

Hmmm cube that good is it ?

Rrrrright, I downloaded the Vertigo2 beta and the sample you provide and had a comparison sesh with my pet Cameleon...and the results are...

With that vibes sample, I think Cameleon gives the most realistic resynthesised result. I resynthed the sample in each program, then played the original sample back closely followed by each resyn(at the right pitch). Cameleons is pretty much bang on, the Vertigo one is excellent too but seems to lack a certain acoustic 'depth' to it, the initial sound 'palette' on the attack seems less broad, and there is a slight difference in the following resonating sound to my ears. Its quite hard to explain in words...have a listen yourselves...

I also had a bash with a variety of other sounds, such as pianos, guitars, drums and vocal oohs and aahs. I still stand by Cameleon, although sometimes there was not much in it. I still think Vertigo has a more artificial sound to it, esp. with vocal sounds it just misses out on some of the 'lifelikeness' that Cameleon is picking up. Also percussion resynths much better in cameleon, I guess because the noise component is so important to these sounds.

I realise it is a beta version of V2 I'm trying, but the CPU usage is still way more than Cameleon. On my 1.7Ghz with the Vibes sample and six finger chords I'm getting 26%CPU peak with Cameleon and maxing out on Vertigo unless I turn down the no. of partials...which affects the sound quality... but again I guess this could be due to it being a beta.

Anyone else agree? I'd like to try Cube in the same tests as well now...

So, IMHO they are both great synths, but I still prefer my Cameleon...although Vertigo does do some things better like speech, loops etc..

Ta ta for now

bluey wrote:

sorry no comparison with any of them, just play cube for 10 minutes against the others using the presets . cube give me a boner ! And now cube 1.5 has resampling, head over to their page and preview the resampling. For me cube is tops.

Does Cube still require SSE? That's why I didn't jump on it some time ago, my desktop machine is capable, but my laptop isn't. That's why I've been keeping my eye on this thread and the various alternatives (Chameleon, Vertigo, etc).

Doug

George wrote:

One more thing, I have uploaded the source .wav file of the Vibez patch in Vertigo v2.0 beta6 at our wesite, so anyone can resynthesize it in other plugins and make their own conclusions: http://www.discodsp.com/public/vibez.zip

Sorry, you must be joking, this isn't the right sound to test a resynthesizer, it's far too easy. Try something more complicated, with more radical and rapid changes in sound like a sax solo with radical sound/pitch changes, speach or drumloops a short song sequence...

A quick update to my review

http://dspevo.com/Harmony_Counterpoint/modules.php?name=Content&pa=sho wpage&pid=5

Best regards,

Spe3d

:O)

I agree with summa, that's a shitty sound to test with.. I'm sure most of the resynthesizers can replicate that sound pretty closely.

Does Whitenoise do resynthesis?

OK, here I go...

1. Cameleon, the best of the pack !
Its the only one that does multisampling with
1 velocity switch.

Ca5000 is a real instrument !!!
One of the coolest out there.

2. WhiteNoise, very interesesting sound.
Got potential but is not finished yet.

3. Vertigo, the most acurat resampling but as a
instrument pretty useless and boaring and too
expensive CPU wise.

As always, grab the demo versions !

Have to try Cube...

aMused: yes, but not well due to the lack of individual pitch control on the partials. You can make some realistic instruments, but you have to know a lot about additive synthesis. I am doing some experimenting on doing a full resynthesizer, however.

Midiworks: Not done eh? Do you have some suggestions?

Additive synthesis does not necessarily have to be about resynthesis. That's just one thing you can do with it.

WhiteNoise wrote:

Additive synthesis does not necessarily have to be about resynthesis.

Maybe not, but it does play an important role in additive synthesis : it's easier to resynthesize than to set all the frequency bands of a sound by hand!

Peter.

Sure, which is why you can easily draw, morph or import a spectrum in WNA.

What I mean is, imagine if people only tried to create realistic sounds with FM or analog synths.. They're capable of so much more! In fact one could argue that trying to do realistic sounds with additive synthesis is silly since it takes up so much cpu and doesn't sound exactly like the real thing (like a sample would) (Yes, I know additive has other advantages like being able to change time and pitch independently.) IMO, the real power of additive synthesis will be in manipulating sounds and creating entirely new sounds, not just reproducing real instruments which we can already do a great job with if you have a good sampler and multisampled sample library.

Edit: double post, sorry.

Hello,

Summa wrote:

Sorry, you must be joking, this isn't the right sound to test a resynthesizer, it's far too easy. Try something more complicated, with more radical and rapid changes in sound like a sax solo with radical sound/pitch changes, speach or drumloops a short song sequence...

I'd rate your post as trolling but well, it was for a Vertigo vs Cameleon comparison. If you try something as you suggest, there is nothing to compare because AFAIK Cameleon won't resynthsize such complex stuff correctly which is not what was originally intended.

WhiteNoise wrote:

I agree with summa, that's a shitty sound to test with..

Midiworks wrote:

Vertigo, the most acurat resampling but as a instrument pretty useless and boaring and too expensive CPU wise

Thanks for your consideration of our work

George, I wasn't dissing you, and I don't think summa was either. We both just thought that another sample might better show off Vertigo's capabilities (though you are right that speech or drums wouldn't be fair to chameleon). The best test is probably to use several different types of samples.

(also, it's rediculous to say a resynthesizer sounds boring when it can sound like whatever sound you feed into it).

Anyway, I am looking forward to Vertigo 2.0 and I will probably purchase it over Cube or Chameleon when it comes out.

George wrote:

Hello, Summa wrote: Sorry, you must be joking, this isn't the right sound to test a resynthesizer, it's far too easy. Try something more complicated, with more radical and rapid changes in sound like a sax solo with radical sound/pitch changes, speach or drumloops a short song sequence... I'd rate your post as trolling but well, it was for a Vertigo vs Cameleon comparison. If you try something as you suggest, there is nothing to compare because AFAIK Cameleon won't resynthsize such complex stuff correctly which is not what was originally intended.

No it was a quite serious suggestion and you haven't addressed this directly to one resynthesizer for comparison.
Even the Cameleon can resynthesize sounds a little more complex than this. Vibes, Marimba, Organs, a carefully played vionline tone, simple flutes and most reed sounds (except the attack noise), don't need many breakpoint and partials. If you have same at the right picht, they'd a pice of cake. Try for intance something with more pitch changes or multiple instruments at once like for instance from an orchestra.
Don't let ppl. think resynthesizer can recreate virtually every sound, since there are still some limitations to the currently avaiable software...

...Summa

Don't want to open up any cans o' worms but I was wondering whether any of the VSTi additives being discussed are remotely similar to the Kawai k5000. I grew up with a K5 -which languished and then was sold for rent. I never really got underneath the additive hood too much but it felt great to be really different from all the other folk out there...and I could just tell it was inherently cool.

Would you say the current VSTIsinstruments approach the sensibilities of the K5 rather than the k5000? I never played the K5000 but I always had a sweet-tooth to try it.

OK, it's a specious question but the Chianti I just downed was really good!

mayan wrote:

Would you say the current VSTIsinstruments approach the sensibilities of the K5 rather than the k5000?

I don't think any of the softs are much like either of these synths.

Adder actually leans a bit more toward the K5 than any other; Jon has cited some similarities (e.g. volume groups), but has extended it past that in more interesting directions (FM matrix). But Adder generally isn't mentioned in the same group as the "big additives" because of this offbeat nature.

To me, the K5000 really shined with the fact that all of its harmonics could loop ansynchronously, with independent envelope times! Most of it's best sounds were alien textures, but it seems that most soft customers want to use the technology as a "resampler", which I think is kinda cool but entirely missing the point.

- m

I know what you mean...I seem to be involved in making worlds when I work with additives. I mean -whomp- right into alternate universes but musical at the same time.

Shoulda gotten my hands on a k5000...maybe some day.

Hey Mayan,

I own a K5000 and I think WNA is probably the closest additive to it (though I haven't tried Adder yet). A lot of the features in WNA were taken from the K5000. The formant filter, even/odd control over harmonics and formant filter bias for formant sweeps are things that really defined it's sound and are reproduced in WNA.

WhiteNoise wrote:

I am doing some experimenting on doing a full resynthesizer, however. Do you have some suggestions?

It'll be very interesting to see what will come out of the WNA camp, because WNAS is the only demo I've installed recently that has yet to leave the HD.

As far as suggestions, the only one I can think of which was mentioned was the 16 presets at a time. 200+ presets + whatever I craft accessible only 16 at a time... it's like teasing me

Hi peeps,

you have to realise that resynthesis of a sound is limited by the number of analysis windows and length of windows used. The shorter the windows the better the time domain analysis, the longer the window the better the frequecy domain analysis. You cant have both, at least not with fft. Ive wondered if its possible to analyse a sound with long and short window types and then do an interpolation/summation (dont know what Im talking about here ) of the two to get better time and frequency results. Maybe someone with more knowledge could comment.

CreepJoint wrote:

...you have to realise that resynthesis of a sound is limited by the number of analysis windows and length of windows used. The shorter the windows the better the time domain analysis, the longer the window the better the frequecy domain analysis. You cant have both...

Sounds like quantum mechanics. So if I get this right, playing an additive synth is like presenting the wave function in auditive form never looked at it that way before..